Hello A,

Thank you for writing this article and introducing me to this topic! As I spent a career in environmental remediation, at first glance it looks like this proposes to improve the environment by putting a bigger "treatment" system in place (nature), but not doing anything about the source. In the work we did for oil companies, prevention was always preferred and considered more cost-effective than remediation. If one can address emissions from a factory before they enter the environment, that is easier than trying to enhance the capacity of acres of forests to treat those emissions. And if one can improve the manufacturing process, so emissions are less, that is even better.

For investors, it is obviously not very exciting to throw money at improving a manufacturing process. But to think that free markets and capitalism will do a better job of stewarding nature? Nature doesn't need stewarding in that it needs to be left alone, to grow wild and serve no economic purpose. If any extraterrestrial being landed on this planet, they would very quickly understand by looking at the condition of our environment how effective at protecting it our capitalistic system has been.